Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31/78) and published in the Tiruvallur District Gazette dated 18.09.1997 noifying the acquisition of petitioner's land in Periyasozhiyambakkam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District in Survey Nos.111/9A and 111/10A to the extent of 0.02.5 Hectares and 0.01.0 hectares.
3.The contention of the petitioner was that his father Arumuga Reddy and one Natesa Reddy were brothers. They were owners of the said land. His father Arumuga Reddy died on 11.12.2004. On the basis of the mutual and oral partition between the legal heirs of Arumuga Reddy, including the petitioner, the said land had come into possession of the petitioner. He has a patta standing in his name.
4.It was stated that the petitioner's land in question was sought to be acquired for providing road for Adi Dravidar to reach their cremation ground, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Government Order was issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare in G.O.Ms.No.627, Social Welfare, dated 7.3.85. The petitioner's father and his paternal uncle filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.3130 of 1985 and challenged the said notification issued under
Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court, by a final order, dated 31.7.1995 allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification under
Section 6(1). The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare was directed to issue a fresh notice to the father of the petitioner for an enquiry under Section 5A in accordance with law and thereafter, to proceed to complete the acquisition if so desired.
5.According to the petitioner, no further steps were taken after the disposal of the case by this court. But, since after the judgment of this court, i.e. on 31.7.95, the petitioner's father died on 11.12.2004, no notice was issued. However, without any notice, the impugned Gazette notification was issued under
Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 31/78. In the schedule to the said notification, the land which the petitioner claims was shown as belonging to the petitioner's father. Therefore, the petitioner contended that subsequent to the death of his father Arumuga Reddy, there were six children the petitioner being 4th issue as well as there was one daughter. The petitioner's mother by a settlement deed, dated 5.11.2009 had given away the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also got documents for having paid the land Tax.
6.The petitioner subsequently wrote a letter to the District Collector on 17.8.2009, stating that the authorities have entered into the land and had planted yellow stones and plotted out the land. Therefore, he wanted the Collector to remove those border stones. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under the Right To Information Act. In his application, dated 9.9.2009, he had stated that he may be furnished with the copy of notification issued for acquisition of the land. On getting the said notification, he had filed the present writ petition.
7.The contention raised by the petitioner was that he had no notice about the impugned notification and he cannot be dispossessed. It must be noted that before notification under
Section 4(1) under the Tamil Nadu Act, 31/78, a notice under
Section 4(2) will have to be given by the District Collector. Thereafter, the land will be vested with the Government under
Section 5 free from all encumbrances. After the amounts are determined, the person whose lands were acquired, will have to be paid compensation. Any aggrieved person can also file an appeal against the amount so determined.
8.In the present case, after the order was passed by this court, when the petitioner's father's land was sought to be acquired under the Central Act, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act, 31/78 was under stay and was also set aside by this Court. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act vide its judgment in State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal reported in (1995) 1 SCC 519. The acquisitions which are not made earlier under the Special enactment was directed to be made as per the State enactment with effect from 22.11.1994. Since in the present case, the earlier notification under
Section 6 of the Central Act was set aside only on 31.7.1995, the authority will have to proceed under the State enactment. Accordingly, it must be presumed that they would have gone through the process. The petitioner had not procured
Section 4(2) notice issued by the respondent and the copy of the Award which would have shown whether the father of the petitioner had received notice or not.
9.The petitioner's father was alive till 11.12.2004. It is also not clear whether the petitioner's father collected compensation pursuant to the final award passed in the proceedings initiated by the Collector under the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78. The impugned notification was issued on 18.9.1997 and the petitioner's father was alive for seven 7 years thereafter. The petitioner thereafter cannot create document as if the lands had devolved upon him and try to have recourse to RTI Act as if he was coming to know of things only presently so as to create a cause of action to challenge the said notification after a period of 12 years. When the petitioner's father had not questioned it, it is not open to the petitioner to question it as the legal heir of the father.
10.The petitioner's contention that he was kept dark about the proceedings cannot be believed. On the contrary, notifications are issued in the year 1997. The petitioner was very much major and must have been known of things. The attempt by the petitioner to stall the welfare scheme only when the lands were divided and plotted out to be given to the beneficiaries cannot be countenanced by this court.
11.Further, though the petitioner contended that there are other writ petitions admitted on similar grounds, in the matter of delay, there can be no similar ground. In the present case, the petitioner had not explained the enormous delay of 12 years in coming to this Court in challenging the impugned notification. The method adopted by the petitioner in gaining time can neither be believed nor will be accepted by this Court.
12.The writ petition is bereft of any details. It is also misconceived and lack in merit. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected MPs also stand dismissed.
16.11.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To
1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Ponneri Division (E), Ambattur, Chennai.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.NO.23082 OF 2009 16.11.2009